Age no bar to ambition

Close on the heels of the prime minister’s statement that he ‘does not rule out or rule in’ a third stint in office comes L.K. Advani’s remark that he still ‘remains active in politics’ to pursue his ‘dream to make India the greatest nation.’ Both the timing and the substance of these comments have predictably raised eye-brows. Why did Manmohan Singh say what he did when there is a growing clamour within the Congress to project Rahul Gandhi as the party’s mascot for the next general elections? And why has the veteran BJP leader thrown his hat in the ring in all but the name when the cadres have in overwhelming numbers made known their preference for Narendra Modi?

The answers to these questions must be sought in their respective contexts. In his address to industry captains, Rahul Gandhi left no one in doubt that the top job does not enamour him. He would rather expend his energies on strengthening the Congress organization. The stance does not entirely rule out the possibility that he would be persuaded to abide by the ‘wishes of the party’ to shoulder prime ministerial responsibilities should the UPA return to power.

But in this case it is equally likely that he might choose to follow in his mother’s foot-steps: manage the party’s affairs and let someone else run the government. The party’s official position – not shared by the likes of Digvijaya Singh – is that the ‘diarchy’ model has worked well for a decade. That is more than a hint to assert that it could well work in the future too. In other words, there appears to be a deliberate strategy to highlight every achievement of Congress rule and ignore or minimise its failings rather than harp on an individual or a family.

Against this background it made sense for Manmohan Singh to not rule himself either in or out of the succession battle. To rule himself out would have meant reducing himself to playing a lame-duck role for the remaining term of the UPA. And to rule himself in would have rubbed both the Rahul-for-PM brigade and other wannabe prime ministerial candidates in his party.

On the first count he asserted his claim to govern without a sword hanging over his head. And on the second count he moved to counter those who aspire for the job. To drive home the point, and in the bargain to remain in the good books of the family, he left no one doubt that he would be delighted to see Rahul Gandhi at the helm of the next government.

There is therefore no threat to the scion of the Gandhi family from Manmohan Singh. Quite to the contrary. Both are on the same page as regards the party’s policies and programmes. The differences, if any, are more of degree than of kind. The prime minister’s speaks a language that appeals more to corporate India and middle-class India while Rahul speaks a language that is meant to be music to the ears of the poor, the minorities, women, SCs, STs and the pradhans of panchayats. Together both seek to reach out to the entire gamut of the electorate.

This is not the case of L.K. Advani. The endorsement of his candidature for the top post by Vijay Goel, the Delhi BJP chief, indicates a concerted attempt to stymie Narendra Modi. Goel was doubtless echoing the reservations about Modi in sections of the BJP’s leadership. This much should be obvious from Advani’s observation that far from being apologetic about the Ayodhya movement, the BJP should be proud of it because it was an ‘outstanding product’ of both a political and cultural movement.

At a time when Modi has been bending over backwards to emphasise good governance and development – and steadfastly refusing to engage in ‘vote-bank’ politics – Advani’s evocation of how well the Ayodhya movement galvanised support for the BJP is, to put it mildly, quite out of character. Over the years, the Gujarat chief minister has tried, with great success, to neutralise the hot-heads in his saffron parivar and put the Godhra and post-Godhra communal violence behind him. But Advani has now opened a Pandora’s Box: public attention will once again be attracted to the terrible depredations that followed in the wake of the BJP leader’s rath yatra that began on 25 September 1990 from the Somnath temple. It subsequently led to the destruction of the Babri masjid. And it will draw attention to the unhealed wounds of 2002.

However, to be fair to Manmohan Singh and L.K. Advani, there is no earthly reason why they should not aspire to lead the country despite their advanced age. Regional leaders like K.Karunanidhi and Prakash Singh Badal headed their state governments – the latter continues to do so – in their late seventies and early eighties. The man who transformed China – Deng Xioping – was in his mid-seventies when he asserted his authority and persisted in that role for more than a decade afterwards. And the man who is called upon to decide the fate of Italy – a country the sangh parivar loves to loathe – after the last elections failed to yield a government is its president, Giorgio Napolitano, a former communist. He is 87 years old. The Italians don’t seem to mind.